Interesting how this "new rule" says nothing about the Middle Infielder's blocking a runner's path.....but I didn't expect much out of Mann, and this rule is NOT necessary IMO, either...... http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2015/10/13...m=newsletter&utm_campaign=los-angeles-dodgers By Craig CalcaterraOct 13, 2015, 4:53 PM EDT 24Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)24 20Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)20 Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Commissioner Rob Manfred is at the Cards-Cubs game this afternoon and the sporting press just spoke with him about the fallout from the Chase Utley/Ruben Tejada play from the other night. Not surprising. Also not surprising? Manfred’s desire to implement a new rule in an effort to prevent such a play from happening again. Or, at the very least, to allow for clear-cut punishment for someone who breaks it: Which is ridiculous, as we already have Rule 6.05(m) on the books. That rule — which is as clear as Crystal Pepsi — says a baserunner is out when . . . (m)A preceding runner shall, in the umpires judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play: Rule 6.05(m) Comment: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base. Obviously this is an umpires judgment play. That rule totally and completely covers the Utley-Tejada situation. The umpires were wrong for not enforcing it both then and in the past, but that’s the rule, just as good as any other rule in that book and in no way in need of replacement. Why not just enforce that rule? What rule would “better protect” infielders than that one? What would do so in a more straightforward a manner? What could baseball possibly add to it which would make plays at second base less confusing rather than more so? I suspect what Manfred is interested in here is some means to change this from a judgment call to a clear-cut rule. It was that impulse that led to the implementation of clocks for pitchers and batters and innings breaks rather than giving umpires the discretion to enforce existing pace-of-play rules. It was that impulse which led to a tripartite (or is it quadpartite?) means of determining whether a catcher impermissibly blocks the plate or a runner barrels him over rather than simply enforce existing base-blocking rules. But taking rules out of the subjective realm and into the objective is difficult or downright impossible in many cases, both in law and in baseball. It’s almost totally impossible when intent is an element of the thing, as it is here. It’s likewise the case that, were there a clear and easy bright line to be established in service of a judgment-free rule on this matter, someone may have stumbled upon it once in the past, oh, 150 years. And maybe even tried to implement it. They haven’t, of course. Probably because there was no need, what with Rule 6.05(m) sitting up there all nice and tidy and an army of judgment-armed umpires standing ready to enforce it should they be asked to. Unfortunately, Major League Baseball has decided that eschewing set rules in favor of new ones is better. Rules about the time batters and pitchers should take. Rules about blocking bases. Rules about how long someone should be suspended for a first time drug offense. Late Selig and Manfred-era Major League Baseball has decided, it seems, that anything 150 years of baseball can do, it can do better. Or at least newer and without the input of people in the judgment-passing business like umpires and arbitrators and the like. Why can’t baseball send a memo to the umpires and the players over the winter saying the following: Listen up: That rule about running into fielders that you all have already agreed to abide by in your respective Collective Bargaining Agreements? We’re serious about it now and WILL be enforcing it. If you break it, players, you’re going to be in trouble. If you refuse to enforce it, umpires, you’re going to be in trouble. Understood? Good. Sincerely Bobby M. If players complain, they complain. They don’t have a say about established rules. If, on the other hand, your process of making new rules is easier than your process of simply enforcing rules you already have, your system is messed up and we should be having a whole other conversation.
...that's exactly what he appears to be so far, a puppeteered mouth piece for the owners, who naturally hold the strings.
exactly the Owners "puppeteered mouth piece" like a Politician who only says what you want to hear........but does the opposite in due time....
As long as players begin there slide BEFORE the base you don't need any new rules. And if you don't slide until after you reach or pass the bag (Utley) then its interference.. Works for me.
Agreed, but this new rule does not even have a sentence, stating no Fielder shall interfere with a runner, either, a half assed new rule as I've seen........ The Game we love the most, is taking some crazy turns, not all in line with the times......
I'm with Ron. It can be addressed without taking out the hard nosed aspect of baseball. In other words breaking up double plays or going in with a hard slide it part of the game. Rolling blocks which amount to chop blocks in football, sliding well beyond the base or out of the baseline or going in at the knees or above which carry a likely hood of injury needs to be eliminated. At the end of the day nobody wants to see a parade of middle infielders with broken legs. That being said I don't think we have had that except for the fact that the time frame of the Pirate and Met injuries was very close. There should also be a mantra of play hard but also respect the guys you're on the field with. Just like you don't want a pitcher throwing at your head you shouldn't be looking to injure an infielder.
I loved playing Football as a kid, when "Chop Blocks" were NOT Illegal....(Neither was the Deacon Jones 'Head Slap' illegal).....In those days one could literally wear a arm cast, tape it up for padding, and whale away, using said arm cast as a very lethal weapon.....No wonder I don't think straight, too many concussions...... Playing RB/FL, I'd often wait for the DE to come in towards the pocket, chop block him, driving the DE right into a very large Mud Puddle..... those were the days, but YES, one has to protect each others knees, and other injuries, and this can be addressed without putting skirts on Middle Infielders.......
...Torre initially overreacted, which caused MLB to overreact, and now Manfred appears to be overreacting again. This is something that needs to wait till the off season by getting the Umps, players, Torre, and Manfred collectively involved. I'm sure there's a way to amend the rule or the way the rule can be interpreted so that infielders can be better protected, but without creating even more "pussification" (sorry Lil) of the game, as they have in football. ...it won't be simple, because if you look at the way they supposedly changed the rule about catchers blocking the plate, there still seems to be somewhat of a grey area there and from what I've seen, Umps seldom apply the new rule correctly.
